They had pretty good results post WW2. The problem is that they ended up lagging behind the western bloc because of a lack of resources and innovation. Basic healthcare doesn't mean much if you don't have good treatment in the first place. It is a common problem with communist countries, they usually have good access to healthcare, but they don't have the resources to give proper treatment.
I have the opposite problem. I have a genius idea, and I start to research it.
I find a company that actually built a solid product, dangit this is really good. They appear to have executed well, but they failed, or went nowhere, heck the app is still out there. Maybe they are even chugging along but its a smaller business even with a better product than I would have been able to build. Had I been a founder of the product, I would be questioning staying.
Then I also find sometimes I was doing it all wrong and the world has moved past my notions of products. I think there's a market opportunity because I don't realize that the rest of the world is already cool using a $15 plant hygrometer bluetooth device which can also keep track of your medicine or food in your cooler, my notion of the value of something is skewed by western costs
This article uses a lot of numbers to make not very strong arguments.
Lets assume that as a media planner, you have the bag of money under your desk to plausibly be discussing buying a Superbowl spot. You are already spending millions of dollars on media every month, the question is - will the Superbowl spot yield more than other channels ?
For some small set of advertisers in this decision matrix, there's also the question of whether the media production cost is worth it (hello coinbase). For the vast majority of decision makers in this position, the media production budget is already getting spent.
Lets say the spot plus extra cost is $10m to use a nice round number.
You have an expectation of how many new users or website visitors your media budget typically delivers for $10m, because you spend that regularly (monthly, quarterly, it doesn't matter, but the point is that your spend has been growing).
So the decision is really really simple. Superbowl or the other places you've been shoving $10m. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, but usually its like eh compared to the other places you've been shoving your $10m, underwhelming. Which is why you see justification pieces like this.
Sorry it's just f'ing bizarre we're talking about throwing TENS of millions for "advertising" instead of shit that actually benefits people and the world.
Meanwhile some people complain about space programs etc. wasting money.
At least it's not Facebook or other online monster. When I read the piece I thought if it wasn't for superbowl that money would have went straight in the garbage.
I think this is true if you evaluate it purely as a performance channel, but I suspect most Super Bowl buys aren't competing with search/social on the same axis
Let me give you the counterpoint that is increasingly hard to ignore :
You can reach the same users on search and social that the Superbowl will give you and if you can convert them more efficiently, where should your $10m go ?
The newfangled wisdom is that customers are at least as effective branding as the Superbowl
I think it was Teller who said the secret to a good magic trick was to put in so much effort that no reasonable person would assume that’s what you’d done.
If you wanted to join a bunch of stones so well that there were no seams, using manual labor, would you pick shapes like these to confuse the hell out of future humans who would wonder how you did it with manual labor ?
Humans have been artists and show offs as long as we’ve been human. I don’t know if the craftsman who cut that thought people a millennium later would still be impressed by it, but I’m sure they’d be happy as hell that we are.
reply